On 10 September 2025, during the public part of the plenary session, the Second Senate began deliberation of the case upon constitutional complaint of Volodymyr Keleberda regarding the constitutionality of paragraph 61 of Section XII “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” No. 1402-VIII dated 2 June 2016, as amended.

During the plenary session, the Judge-Rapporteur in the case, Vasyl Lemak, judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, announced that Volodymyr Keleberda had appealed to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to verify the constitutionality of paragraph 61 of Section XII “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and Status of Judges” No. 1402-VIII dated 2 June 2016, as amended (hereinafter, “Law No. 1402”), which establishes that “the reassignment of a judge to a position in another court of the same or lower level in the event of the reorganisation or liquidation of the court “in which such a judge holds office, may be carried out without competition only after confirmation by such a judge of his or her suitability for the position of judge appointed for a term of five years or elected as a judge for an indefinite term before the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine (Regarding Justice)”.

Volodymyr Keleberda asserts that paragraph 61 of Section XII “Final and Transitional Provisions” of Law No. 1402 applies to judges, including judges of courts liquidated before the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and Status of Judges” and certain legislative acts of Ukraine on improving judicial career procedures” No. 3511-IX (hereinafter, “Law No. 3511”) (30 December 2023), i.e. judges who were entitled to be reassigned under the legislation in force at the time of the liquidation of these courts, and therefore, the legislator “made the right to be reassigned dependent on passing a qualification assessment”. Therefore, in the opinion of the subject of the right to a constitutional complaint, paragraph 61 of Section XII “Final and Transitional Provisions” of Law No. 1402 does not comply with the principles of the rule of law, the prohibition of narrowing the content and scope of existing rights, equality before the law, the irreversibility of laws in time, and the independence of judges established by the Constitution of Ukraine, and also violates the right to work guaranteed by the Basic Law of Ukraine.

From the content of the constitutional complaint and the materials attached to it, it appears that the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, by its Resolution “On the Election of Judges” No. 2594-VI dated 7 October 2010, elected Volodymyr Keleberda as a judge of the District Administrative Court of the City of Kyiv for an indefinite term.

On 7 June 2018, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (hereinafter, the “Commission”) delivered a decision appointing a qualification assessment of judges of local and appellate courts for compliance with their positions, in particular Volodymyr Keleberda.

The Law of Ukraine “On the Liquidation of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv and the Establishment of the Kyiv City District Administrative Court” No. 2825-IX dated 13 December 2022 came into force on 15 December 2022. Paragraph 2 of Section II “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the aforementioned law stipulates that from the date of its entry into force, the District Administrative Court of Kyiv shall cease to administer justice.

On 1 June 2023, the High Council of Justice appointed a new composition of the Commission.

On 9 December 2023, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Law No. 3511,” which came into force on 30 December 2023. Law No. 3511 amended the procedure for assessing a judge's suitability for the position held, provided for in paragraph 20 of Section XII “Final and Transitional Provisions” of Law No. 1402, and supplemented Section XII “Final and Transitional Provisions” of Law No. 1402, in particular, with the contested provision.

On 11 January 2024, the Commission decided to continue the qualification assessment procedure for judges, including judges of liquidated courts in which the administration of justice has been suspended in accordance with the law, in particular the judge of the liquidated District Administrative Court of Kyiv, Volodymyr Keleberda.

By its decision of 19 June 2024, the Commission set the date of 9 July 2024 for 105 judges, including Volodymyr Keleberda, to take an examination as part of a qualification assessment for suitability for their position or a qualification assessment in connection with the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.

On 20 June 2024, Volodymyr Keleberda submitted a statement to the Commission requesting the completion of the assessment initiated in relation to him in accordance with paragraph 20 of Section XII “Final and Transitional Provisions” of Law No. 1402, within the time limit specified in paragraph 3 of Section II “Final and Transitional Provisions” of Law No. 3511, i.e., by 30 June 2024.

On 10 July 2024, the Commission delivered a decision recognising that the examination within the framework of the qualification assessment of a judge's suitability for the position held or the qualification assessment in connection with the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, scheduled for 9 July 2024, had not taken place, and amended the schedule for this examination, as determined by Commission Decision No. 199/zp-24 dated 19 June 2024, in particular, setting a new date for the examination for Volodymyr Keleberda – 30 July 2024 (reserve dates – 20 August and 10 September 2024). The applicant filed a lawsuit against the Commission, requesting that the Commission's inaction related to the failure to perform actions that the Commission should and could have performed in view of the requirements of paragraph 3 of Section II “Final and Transitional Provisions” of Law No. 3511, according to which it had to complete by 30 June 2024 the procedure for assessing the suitability of Judge Volodymyr Keleberda of the Kyiv District Administrative Court for the position he held.

The Administrative Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court, by its judgement of 14 October 2024, dismissed the claim.

The applicant disagreed with judgement of the court of first instance and appealed to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, requesting that the judgement of the Supreme Court of 14 October 2024 be overturned and a new decision be delivered to satisfy the claims in full.

By its decision of 23 January 2025, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Volodymyr Keleberda and left the judgement of the Administrative Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court of 14 October 2024 unchanged.

In addition, the Judge-Rapporteur informed that in order to ensure a full and objective deliberation of the case and the delivery of justified decision by the Court, he had sent requests to state authorities and higher education establishments. The content of the judges' responses will be reported in detail in the in-camera part of the plenary session.

After examining the case materials in the public part of the plenary session, the Court proceeded to the in-camera deliberations for a decision.

The video recording of the plenary session is available on the Court’s official website in the Section “Archive of Video Broadcasts of Sessions”.